What Reporters Can Do When Candidates or Officials Ice You Out
“Never forget, the press is the enemy,” Richard Nixon told Henry Kissinger in 1972.
Icing out reporters and demonizing the press is not new. It’s been part of political playbooks in the United States for decades. But it’s steadily gotten worse among Republican candidates, from local to national offices, since Donald Trump rose to political power.
As was reported in a recent Intelligencer article, Why Republicans Stopped Talking to the Press, many GOP candidates and party members don’t see the point anymore. Beneath their lack of cooperation can be a range of arguments including:
- A belief they won’t get a fair shake or be taken out of context (which does happen sometimes, and is a valid concern)
- Many of them have their own distribution channels and don’t need traditional media to get their messages out
- For their followers, not cooperating and badmouthing the media is an effective way to virtue signal
- They don’t have answers to what reporters are likely to ask, and it’s easier to say they don’t trust the media than to do the work of understanding policy and practice and forming a position
- They don’t want to be asked tough questions about or say anything damaging to their own party or Trump, and fear retribution.
Speaking to reporters is a political calculation for candidates. It’s important to stay focused on the fact they’re icing out your audiences and potential constituents, not just you or your colleagues. So if a candidate or official won’t talk, it’s up to reporters to change the equation.
OK. So what’s a reporter to do, when their former modus operandi can’t happen? What do they say to their audiences when they’ve left 100 messages, attempted to get an answer at a press conference, and have been denied at every turn? How do you build relationships and trust with a politician or candidate’s communications staff when those jobs have such high turnover rates?
Here are a variety of ways I’ve witnessed reporters addressing this complex web of issues. It’s worth discussing with your colleagues if any of these approaches would work for your newsroom, the communities you serve, and the political context in which you operate.
Run Blank Space
Picture a candidate questionnaire on a news site, a voter guide, or an article in which a reporter lays out all candidates’ or officials’ responses to a topic or question. For those who have answered, you run their replies. For those you have given opportunities to reply and who have not, run blank space. Explain that you have reached out and given the candidate time. Include how many times you’ve reached out, how much time you’ve given, and if you’ve had no reply or what the reply has been.
This may be an easier approach for print and digital publications, as blank space in text and dead air on broadcast have different dramatic implications.
What this does
Shows the public who is responding and who is not, drawing attention and curiosity about those who have not given answers more so than just not including that candidate or official would. This also allows your audiences to learn about the platforms, policies and history of candidates / officials who are cooperating and wanting the public to learn more about how they would govern if elected, or how they are governing, when in office. Including how, and how many times, your newsroom reached out to the candidate also shows the lengths your newsroom went to provide the candidates a fair shake.
Who has tried it
In 1992, The Charlotte Observer completely reimagined their campaign coverage, pioneering the approach known as The Citizens Agenda (more on this approach later in this article). According to their write-up of their efforts (see screenshot below), candidates felt compelled to participate, and for one who did not participate, the running of blank space under where his answers should have been, compelled the candidate to participate later. Mileage may vary in ~these times~.
This is from the original documentation of The Charlotte Observer’s successful pioneering use of The Citizens Agenda approach in 1992 (page 26).
Next level
We recommend you include a short explanation about why some candidates or officials refuse to respond, why it matters, and not leave it to a shrug. Here’s an example of what you could write: Despite leaving two voicemails and three emails in the last week, this candidate has refused to respond to our media outlet. You may wonder why that is? Some candidates choose to attack the press or not answer our questions because either they assume we are not fair, or that our audiences are not their constituents, or they do not want to answer tough questions from journalists about their party and alienate potential supporters, or they haven’t done the work of forming a policy position. For reference, here’s a link to our editorial policy and how we make decisions (link to that. And if you don’t have it, make one. Trusting News has a guide!). This strategy of turning the press into an enemy has a long history, and it is used as a strategy to wield power without accountability to the public interest. Learn more about this approach from The Arizona State Law Journal.
Hot tip: Annelise Pierce from Shasta Scout shared one of her newsroom’s internal practices, “We also label our requests for comment by the number of times we have attempted and often cc a supervisor, lateral peer, or campaign manager on subsequent emails. For example: ‘Shasta Scout: 4th Request for Comment — CEO appointment.’
The Non-Interview
This strategy collates information about a candidate from the candidate’s public statements and publications, then adds newsroom analysis (often called a “write-around.”). This is an especially important technique for elected officials who refuse to answer media inquiries and just use their own channels to communicate. How is the public to know what politicians are doing when they avoid being accountable or won’t answer direct questions?
This approach is a way of reporting, through any channels that are accessible (like a social media feed, public debates, etc.) what a candidate/official is saying, thinking and doing, to the best of the reporter’s ability.
What this does
It helps the public better understand what a candidate/official is doing through bringing together information that person has shared alongside contextual analysis. It provides some degree of accountability. It can also draw attention to their non-cooperation and show how journalists work hard to get the public’s answers.
Who has tried it
WUWM in Milwaukee has been pioneering non-interviews, not only providing substantive reporting but also explaining the journalistic process. Check out these two examples:
- A non-interview with Sen. Ron Johnson: Where he stands on the issues and the questions that remain
- A non-interview with Tim Michels: Where he stands on the issues and the questions that remain
The New Yorker did this huge write-around profile on Ron DeSantis as a presidential candidate, despite DeSantis not participating.
Next level
Same advice as in “run blank space,” but also invite the candidate / official to reach out to correct the record if any of their answers have changed. See WUWM examples for language inspiration. Be sure to highlight inconsistencies in the record, therefore showing the need for the candidate to clarify their positions.
Dan Froomkin, the founder and editor of Press Watch, has another recommendation.
“If a major candidate isn’t speaking to journalists and their campaign is demonizing the media, that’s news and that calls for a big story: ‘[candidate] refuses to talk to us, attacks us instead’ or ‘questions [candidate] refuses to answer.’ And I would not make these gotchas; I would make them questions that are flatly in the public’s interest to know the answers.”
The “Complicating The Narratives” Political Interview
Journalist and author Amanda Ripley has provided a goldmine of insights that newsrooms would do well to study and adopt. Her much-cited essay Complicating The Narratives for the Solutions Journalism Network lays out ways journalists can cover controversial topics with more nuance and in an age of polarization.
Not only does Ripley’s approach help the public better understand a candidate or elected official — where they are torn, where they think their opponents have a point — but it also helps candidates / officials show up as more three dimensional, and feel more seen and fairly portrayed by journalists.
File this comment under #notallmedia, but a lot of commercially-driven news media does optimize for polarizing content because it drives traffic. And journalists can and do get it wrong sometimes! We are human. So it is understandable that some candidates / officials, in good faith, don’t want to engage with journalists out of fear that what they say may be taken out of context or used inappropriately.
What this does
Establishes with the public and the candidate/official that your newsroom recognizes the problems with old models of coverage, earns trust of all involved and creates more nuanced and less polarized journalism.
Who has tried this
One newsroom that did get Ripley’s memo was Richland Source, an innovative digital newsroom in Ohio. They used her question guide that helps complicate narratives for this interview with 2022 Senate candidate J.D. Vance, a controversial figure. The Richland Source staff transparently explain what they’re doing in the lede for this interview, writing, “Ripley’s work is aimed at helping reporters and editors dig beneath people’s positions and get to their motivations, to cover conflict more thoughtfully, to ‘revive complexity in a time of false simplicity.’”
The team let then-candidate Vance know ahead of the interview what they were going to do, how it was different, and why. Vance was game and opted in. The resulting interview is nuanced, complicated and provides far more value to the public than a traditional interview would. Vance even told reporters how much he appreciated the format, that it was a refreshing change of pace for how he’s usually treated. The Richland Source aimed to do this style with all of the candidates, and to nix “horse race” coverage from their toolbox of election styles.
Next level
Use this approach for all of your reporting / interviews. And read about / implement these practices derived from Ripley’s 2021 best-seller, High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped & How To Get Out.
The “Citizens Agenda”
This model of election reporting flips the script. Rather than journalists reporting on what politicians and candidates are saying, it starts by asking the public, “what do you want candidates to be talking about as they compete for your vote?” Journalists aim to get answers from as wide a swath of the public as possible, then they find the patterns in what people are concerned about and the newsroom publishes the most common needs and questions as their reporting agenda for elections. As journalists encounter candidates, they press them on what the public is asking for, and then report back to the people that politicians are supposed to be serving, ultimately better informing their vote.
What this does
This puts the power in the hands of the people, because journalists take the public’s questions and topics to candidates, forcing candidates away from their agenda to what the citizens want. (Note: “citizen” here is a shorthand and meant to imply the public. This is not a strategy tied to whether or not people have citizenship.)
Who has tried this
So many newsrooms! Hearken collaborated with Jay Rosen and Trusting News to create this guide in 2019 and since then dozens of newsrooms have replaced their horse race coverage with this approach. Here are a few of the standouts:
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: A peoples agenda for Milwaukee: Tell us what do you want the mayoral candidates to talk about
- WBEZ — Chicago Public Media: You Told Us What You Care About This Election Season. Here’s How We’ll Report On It.
- The Conversation: Why The Conversation will focus on policy over personality in this federal election campaign
- The Tyee: Help Shape The Tyee’s Federal Election Reporting
Next level
This approach need not just be deployed during elections. It can form the backbone strategy for all governance and political reporting. Longer term — journalists must get better at earning the public’s trust than candidates who are acting in bad faith are. As I wrote in 2016, “if newsrooms want to be good for democracy, they need to become better at democracy.” That means they need to integrate more representation, more engagement, more transparency and more accountability into their processes.
Earning Trust With Candidates Through Constituents & Consistency
Sometimes reporters choose to do the exclusion. They ignore people with extreme views and extremist candidates or officials, not covering them at all. There are a variety of arguments why to do that, including not wanting to give a platform or more credence to their views. But what do you do when the community your newsroom serves includes many extremists in office and extremist candidates? And how do you describe people who don’t use or relate to that word “extremist”? How do you help voters understand what’s at stake and what those running for office stand for?
One way to address this is to use the Citizens Agenda approach, and source your questions for candidates through the community that candidates or officials are serving. In addition, keep your interview questions consistent and let all of them know that you’re treating everyone the same and centering coverage on voiced constituent needs.
What this does
It doesn’t allow candidates to demonize the reporter or outlet as easily, since the questions are coming from their voters / constituents. And it reassures them that the outlet has a process to keep things fair.
Who has tried this
Shasta Scout, which serves Shasta County in Northern California, a place in which many far-right and militant viewpoints have found fertile ground and spread.
The founder and editor, Annelise Pierce, said of this approach, “We only had one candidate not respond to us which was huge given how new we are and how tense the political climate is here. The candidates loved our process. They appreciated that we went to the people, and that we asked the same questions of everyone.”
She added, “Something really interesting is that people with what we think of as extreme political views often have a high value for listening to the people. They’re very focused on a similar “we the people” theme. So they particularly really valued how we flipped the script.”
Another big lesson learned was around language. Pierce said they’re careful with the word “Extremist” and other similar language. Shasta Scout has worked with Trusting News to thread this needle of what to call people and how to reference extremist beliefs or actions.
Pierce said, “Instead of referring to people as extremist which has relative definitions depending on the reader, we work to help our audience understand the views of the candidate themselves. We asked questions like: “Some people refer to you as an extremist. How do you respond to that?” “Since the word extremist doesn’t describe you very well, how would you describe yourself?” That allowed them to respond in their own words to say for example ‘I’m an extreme constitutionalist.’”
Pierce added, “Our other readers are still able to understand what they will interpret as the extreme viewpoints of these candidates because the candidates are still sharing those perspectives, just in other words.”
Add a Democracy Frame to Candidate Coverage
A candidate not talking to new outlets is a clue that they may harbor some anti-democratic tendencies but it’s still a pretty minor one. The game is changing, after all.
But candidates who go further and call the press the enemy of the people are showcasing antidemocratic politics. So are candidates who dehumanize opponents or minority groups (using words like “filth,” “trash,” “rats,” “scum” or other descriptors that deny humanity). Candidates who fail to denounce violence or violent groups fail the most basic test of supporting democracy. So do candidates who will not agree to the peaceful transfer of power or respect the legitimacy of normal election administration (as overseen by regular checks like the courts and state boards).
Should any of these apply to candidates you cover, your newsroom may want to consider “democracy framed” reporting.
If you haven’t already, drop partisan “bothsidesism.” Talk instead about how issues or candidates are supporting democracy or not. Here’s what we mean by that: you’ve likely seen (or maybe even written) headlines about an issue and whether Democrats or Republicans won. But when it’s something like respecting human rights and protection from violence, parties don’t win or lose. Americans lose and the values of democracy are lost.
Using a democracy frame foregrounds democracy as an established norm, as a political ideal and as a series of institutional mechanisms (such as the Voting Rights Act on down to early voting hours). Your newsroom may want to put out an explainer about your editorial strategy and why you’re doing this type of reporting. This frame of coverage requires newsrooms to go beyond fact checking to explain why false claims are being made in the first place, identifying disinformation and propaganda as tools in the (anti-democratic) political strategy.
For example, “democracy frame” coverage of a candidate making claims about widespread voter fraud requires identifying those statements as false and not substantiated with evidence. The democracy frame also requires newsrooms to identify those false claims of voter fraud as a longstanding strategy used to limit access to the vote going all the way back to Reconstruction, when it was used to undermine Black political advances in former slave-holding states.
This frame requires deep reporting and is time intensive <cough, funders please fund>. When anti-democratic candidates are running for office, the investment may well be worth it. The most common way for democracies to fail over the last 25 years is for democratically elected leaders to erode the system from inside.
What this does
This frame treats election denial and attacking the press as fundamentally different from other campaign issues.
Who has tried this
- WITF: Countering the big lie: WITF newsroom’s coverage will connect lawmakers with their election-fraud actions
- LAist: We’re shifting the focus of our politics coverage from politicians to voters. Here’s why.
- LAist: Our Election Mission Statement: What You Can Expect From Our Coverage
Next level
In voter guides, campaign questionnaires and interviews — point out which stances or candidates stand to weaken democracy and which strengthen it. You could also highlight which are demonizing the press as a tactic. Here’s a post about making more iconic voter guides for some inspiration.
Change the Game … Completely
Though it may seem hard to fathom given the routines of most newsrooms, there is always the choice to not play the game of foregrounding candidates, and instead, foreground issues.
Martín Carcasson founded and runs the Center for Public Deliberation at CSU. He sees a world in which journalists would serve the public better by elevating their coverage from covering politicians and parties, to covering wicked problems. In the fall of 2021, Martín helped launch the Northern Colorado Deliberative Journalism Project, a collaboration between the CPD, the CSU Journalism and Media Communication Department, local newsrooms, and other campus and community partners to explore adapting deliberative public engagement strategies to journalism.
After all, most of the issues communities need to solve cannot be solved by any one office holder or any one party or during any term. So why keep pretending that electing the “best” politicians is the answer or the goal, or that a lawmaker in office is the only way to enact change? The real answer may lie in supporting communities in solving their own problems, with government support if and when possible.
Stay tuned to Hearken’s Medium page for more on changing the game. For now I’ll keep this resource focusing on the game that’s very much still playing out.
In Closing
All of this is to say, it’s a serious sign of democratic backsliding when the press is framed and treated as an enemy. So it’s something that at the very least, journalists would do well to inform the public about, and point out as a tactic to help inoculate them from its powers. A study published in the Arizona State Law Journal called ENEMY CONSTRUCTION AND THE PRESS, puts it this way:
“… enemy construction is particularly alarming when the press, rather than some other entity, is the constructed enemy. Undercutting the watchdog, educator, and proxy functions of the press through enemy construction leaves the administration more capable of delegitimizing other institutions and constructing other enemies — including the judiciary, the intelligence community, immigrants, and members of certain races or religions — because the viability and traction of counter-narrative is so greatly diminished.”
As a journalist, editor or leader in the field, you can do something about this. You can name it. Frame it. Explain it. Repeat it and don’t treat political reporting as business as usual. It’s anything but.
IMPORTANT NOTE
Individual journalists are being called out more directly, in person and online, by candidates who are vilifying the media. This increases physical and psychological danger to reporters, especially in this current context in which tensions are high and violence is likely. It’s important for newsrooms to take steps to protect the security of their staff when they report on these candidates. We recommend you check out, bookmark and share these resources:
- The Online Violence Response Hub — support for journalists and newsrooms who are being harassed, threatened, doxxed, etc.
- Committee To Protect Journalists — has a variety of resources for the press to prepare for and respond to emergency situations. They have specific resources (and in a variety of languages) for protection when covering elections.
- The IWMF — has many resources (with specific support for women and non-binary journalists) including hostile environment training
More Resources:
Learn more about the history of attacking the press as a strategy:
- Longreads | When Richard Nixon Declared War on the Media
- NY Mag’s Intelligencer | Why Republicans Stopped Talking to the Press
- Arizona State Law Journal | ENEMY CONSTRUCTION AND THE PRESS
If I’ve missed any approaches you’ve tried or think could work, please comment!
A very special thanks to Jordan Wilkie, Annelise Pierce, Jay Rosen, Dan Froomkin, Martín Carcasson for contributing to this resource.
This resource is made in honor of Democracy Day 2023. Sept. 15 is the International Day of Democracy. Jennifer Brandel is a member of the founding organizing committee, which is helping hundreds of newsrooms better report on threats to American democracy and solutions for safeguarding and hardening democracy. Learn more and sign up to participate here.
